Home › Research › Digital health tools
Does feature selection improve classification accuracy? Impact of sample size and feature selection on classification using anatomical magnetic resonance images
Chu C, Hsu AL, Chou KH, Bandettini P, Lin C, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative.. NeuroImage, 2011-12-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
There are growing numbers of studies using machine learning approaches to characterize patterns of anatomical difference discernible from neuroimaging data. The high-dimensionality of image data often raises a concern that feature selection is needed to obtain optimal accuracy. Among previous studies, mostly using fixed sample sizes, some show greater predictive accuracies with feature selection, whereas others do not. In this study, we compared four common feature selection methods. 1) Pre-selected region of interests (ROIs) that are based on prior knowledge. 2) Univariate t-test filtering. 3) Recursive feature elimination (RFE), and 4) t-test filtering constrained by ROIs. The predictive accuracies achieved from different sample sizes, with and without feature selection, were compared statistically. To demonstrate the effect, we used grey matter segmented from the T1-weighted anatomical scans collected by the Alzheimer's disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) as the input features to a linear support vector machine classifier. The objective was to characterize the patterns of difference between Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients and cognitively normal subjects, and also to characterize the difference between mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients and normal subjects. In addition, we also compared the classification accuracies between MCI patients who converted to AD and MCI patients who did not convert within the period of 12 months. Predictive accuracies from two data-driven feature selection methods (t-test filtering and RFE) were no better than those achieved using whole brain data. We showed that we could achieve the most accurate characterizations by using prior knowledge of where to expect neurodegeneration (hippocampus and parahippocampal gyrus). Therefore, feature selection does improve the classification accuracies, but it depends on the method adopted. In general, larger sample sizes yielded higher accuracies with less advantage obtained by using knowledge from the existing literature.
Key findings
- We showed that we could achieve the most accurate characterizations by using prior knowledge of where to expect neurodegeneration (hippocampus and parahippocampal gyrus).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (NeuroImage) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2012 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 22166797) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Chu, C., Hsu, A. L., Chou, K. H., Bandettini, P., Lin, C., & Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. (2012). Does feature selection improve classification accuracy? Impact of sample size and feature selection on classification using anatomical magnetic resonance images. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.066
Vancouver
Chu C, Hsu AL, Chou KH, Bandettini P, Lin C, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Does feature selection improve classification accuracy? Impact of sample size and feature selection on classification using anatomical magnetic resonance images. NeuroImage. 2012. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.066. PMID: 22166797.
BibTeX
@article{chu2012-22166797,
author = {Chu, C. and Hsu, A. L. and Chou, K. H. and Bandettini, P. and Lin, C. and {Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative}},
title = {{Does feature selection improve classification accuracy? Impact of sample size and feature selection on classification using anatomical magnetic resonance images}},
journal = {NeuroImage},
year = {2012},
doi = {10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.066},
pmid = {22166797},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.066}
}